Benedict was a champion of the Old Mass, the True Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass.

Yep. He loved it so much that he never once offered it publicly himself. Nor is there any evidence that he ever did so in private.

That aside, he was a terrific champion of the TLM.

Can you qualify that statement for sure?

At any rate, I'm sure he publicly performed more than a few pre-Vat II.

Quote

Can you qualify that statement for sure?

Don't need to - it's a fact. If you can offer evidence to the contrary, go right ahead.

Quote

At any rate, I'm sure he publicly performed more than a few pre-Vat II.

Not to get too pedantic but priests do not "perform" the Mass - they offer it. Or at least if they're Novus Ordo, they celebrate it.I'm sure Pope Benedict must have been among them but not as Pope and that's what you asserted.Just sayin'.

Clerical title added to post to enforce forum rule that we give clergy, both Orthodox and Catholic, the respect due their offices -PtA

Benedict was a champion of the Old Mass, the True Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass.

Yep. He loved it so much that he never once offered it publicly himself. Nor is there any evidence that he ever did so in private.

That aside, he was a terrific champion of the TLM.

He's the one who made so that every parish must make it available if the faithful want it.

Are you kidding?? Summorum Pontificum and the accompanying instructions in his Motu Proprio to the Bishops had so many loopholes you could drive an AI tank through them. Try going against any recalcitrant bishop (like my ex) who decides he will not tolerate it. Then appeal to ED and see what that gets you.

All the old ethinc and americanized parishes around me are closing but a few.

The ones that provide the trad Mass are the strongest.

Quite the contrary; my Father's parish uses the Novus Ordo and all the parishes in our part of the city are doing fine. If anything, ethnic parishes are shutting down because of the demographic shift in the city.

All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II. Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass. I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II. Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass. I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side. It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".

All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II. Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass. I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side. It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".

Your new church classifies all Latins as "heretic schismatics." why single out the sspx?

All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II. Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass. I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side. It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".

I think that we should always consider that we live in very confusing times.

All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II. Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass. I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side. It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".

Your new church classifies all Latins as "heretic schismatics." why single out the sspx?

It's a position I held as a Roman Catholic and as an Ukrainian Catholic. Why change now?

Besides, the SSPX acts against the very decrees of her mother Church. Submission to Papal Authority is pre-Vatican II, so is not an issue in-question by the SSPX. Yet they seem to forget it is part of their "tradition".

All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II. Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass. I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side. It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".

I think that we should always consider that we live in very confusing times.

When did we not? I don't get why people today seem to act as if things are worse off today than 50 years ago or 100 years ago or 500 years ago or 1000 years ago, etc. We're not any better or any worse. At any point of history there is a controversy, there is an issue, there is a problem.

Pope Benedict XVI celebrates Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite in private, according to the head of the Society of St Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay. Speaking at a gathering in Brazil this month, Bishop Fellay also claimed that an unnamed Italian bishop had threatened to resign if the Pope ever celebrated the traditional Latin Mass in public.

According to Fellay, the Holy Father's secretary, Mgr Georg Gänswein, also uses the 1962 Missal; Father Z suggests that the Pope may sometimes serve Mass for him (in the older form, he implies, though this isn't clear

All the old ethinc and americanized parishes around me are closing but a few.

The ones that provide the trad Mass are the strongest.

Quite the contrary; my Father's parish uses the Novus Ordo and all the parishes in our part of the city are doing fine. If anything, ethnic parishes are shutting down because of the demographic shift in the city.

Well this is true for the old European ethnic neighborhoods (Irish, Italian, Polish, etc) as these ethnics have moved out of the cities and they have been replaced predominately by blacks, Asians,,Middle Easterns and Latinos in which many are Petntacostals.

But there are some strong hispanic and even Asian parish's like koreans that are still thriving and growing.

All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II. Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass. I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side. It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".

Traditionalists are more loyal to the Pope and Church than anyone, it's the modernists and liberals that are twisting theology and are trying to make Orthodox Catholics a pariah in their own Church.

All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II. Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass. I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side. It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".

Your new church classifies all Latins as "heretic schismatics." why single out the sspx?

It's a position I held as a Roman Catholic and as an Ukrainian Catholic. Why change now?

Hmmm ... hopefully your plan isn't to be one of those Orthodox who constantly have their fingers in the Catholic "pie". I think we have enough of that already with podkarpatska and ialmisry.

All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II. Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass. I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side. It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".

I think that we should always consider that we live in very confusing times.

When did we not? I don't get why people today seem to act as if things are worse off today than 50 years ago or 100 years ago or 500 years ago or 1000 years ago, etc. We're not any better or any worse. At any point of history there is a controversy, there is an issue, there is a problem.

100 years ago my friend their were no debates about two men marrying. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt who are trying to do their best, harsh judgement won't help me on judgement day.

100 years ago my friend their were no debates about two men marrying. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt who are trying to do their best, harsh judgement won't help me on judgement day.

Yet homosexual behavior was accepted by society even in the First Millennium. The fact that it was mentioned so often in the Bible, both at the time of Moses and at the writings of St. Paul point to the fact that such activity exists in the time, and it is the problem. They can't address a problem that doesn't exist, so the fact that they are addressing it means it does exist.

And you're just looking at one problem. There are other problems back then. They don't have abortion the way we do it today, but at certain points in history infanticide was done liberally.

I was listening to this talk by Frederica Matthews-Greene on AFR where she pointed out that the sexual liberation started much, much earlier than we thought, even on movies. While today the glorification of sex is about "consenting unmarried adults", back in the 20s and 30s it was about secret affairs of married men, it was adultery. Yes, our problems today are different, but that doesn't mean they are worse. They have other problems in different magnitudes back then.

All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II. Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass. I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side. It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".

By "Roman Church" do you mean the Western Roman Catholic Church as distinct from the Eastern Catholic sui iuris churches? Or do you mean *all* those churches in communion with Rome? Because if you mean the latter, then there are already two or more "parallel Liturgies" without any threat to the unity of the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church.

In Orthodoxy, you also have different (parallel?) liturgies celebrated without any threat to the unity of the Orthodox Church. So, I'm a little confused as to your meaning.

I'm just asking you here to be a little more precise with your terms for the sake of clarity.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II. Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass. I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side. It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".

By "Roman Church" do you mean the Western Roman Catholic Church as distinct from the Eastern Catholic sui iuris churches? Or do you mean *all* those churches in communion with Rome? Because if you mean the latter, then there are already two or more "parallel Liturgies" without any threat to the unity of the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church.

In Orthodoxy, you also have different (parallel?) liturgies celebrated without any threat to the unity of the Orthodox Church. So, I'm a little confused as to your meaning.

I'm just asking you here to be a little more precise with your terms for the sake of clarity.

There are no parallel Liturgies in Orthodoxy. On a given day we celebrate a specific one. I guess one that comes close is the Liturgy of St. James which some jurisdictions and some parishes may celebrate on his feast day, while other parishes with Liturgy on that day would celebrate St. John Chrysostom's Divine Liturgy. But other than that, its St. John's Liturgy all the time except for the 10 times St. Basil's is prescribed. And it is the same for all.

Parallel means running side by side at the same time. Which means you can go to one parish in one Sunday and have the OF, and then walk across the street and get the EF. And most people who go to the OF don't want the EF, and certainly those who go to the EF would almost exclusively just go to the EF. In Orthodoxy everyone gets to go to both Liturgies, and they go to the same Liturgy on the same day. Of course barring calendar differences, but that would be minimal as most of the time St. Basil's Liturgy is celebrated during Lent where everyone (almost) is on the same calendar.

Quite often when he quotes the Greek fathers the quoted texts are either interpolations or paraphrases. At least, that's the impression I got from reading his Contra Errores Graecorum.

I'd ask you to substantiate your claim, based on your "impression", but I'm (most unfortunately and ashamedly) so unfamiliar with St. Thomas' writings that it probably wouldn't mean much to me. Papist, on the other, seems to have more than just a passing familiarity with him and his writings, so I'm sure he'd be able to understand your references and citations.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II. Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass. I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side. It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".

By "Roman Church" do you mean the Western Roman Catholic Church as distinct from the Eastern Catholic sui iuris churches? Or do you mean *all* those churches in communion with Rome? Because if you mean the latter, then there are already two or more "parallel Liturgies" without any threat to the unity of the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church.

In Orthodoxy, you also have different (parallel?) liturgies celebrated without any threat to the unity of the Orthodox Church. So, I'm a little confused as to your meaning.

I'm just asking you here to be a little more precise with your terms for the sake of clarity.

There are no parallel Liturgies in Orthodoxy. On a given day we celebrate a specific one. I guess one that comes close is the Liturgy of St. James which some jurisdictions and some parishes may celebrate on his feast day, while other parishes with Liturgy on that day would celebrate St. John Chrysostom's Divine Liturgy. But other than that, its St. John's Liturgy all the time except for the 10 times St. Basil's is prescribed. And it is the same for all.

Parallel means running side by side at the same time. Which means you can go to one parish in one Sunday and have the OF, and then walk across the street and get the EF. And most people who go to the OF don't want the EF, and certainly those who go to the EF would almost exclusively just go to the EF. In Orthodoxy everyone gets to go to both Liturgies, and they go to the same Liturgy on the same day. Of course barring calendar differences, but that would be minimal as most of the time St. Basil's Liturgy is celebrated during Lent where everyone (almost) is on the same calendar.

Okay, that's clearer. Thanks! But, what about the Western Rite Orthodox liturgy? Not that it's all that widespread, but, nonetheless, is celebrated on Sunday mornings at the same time the DL of St. John is celebrated elsewhere.

I also think you're making up a problem when there really isn't one. Afaik, both the OF and EF Masses are theologically correct and approved. So, how are they a threat to the unity of the Church?

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Okay, that's clearer. Thanks! But, what about the Western Rite Orthodox liturgy? Not that it's all that widespread, but, nonetheless, is celebrated on Sunday mornings at the same time the DL of St. John is celebrated elsewhere.

I also think you're making up a problem when there really isn't one. Afaik, both the OF and EF Masses are theologically correct and approved. So, how are they a threat to the unity of the Church?

That is why I don't wonder why so many are opposed to it, but also for various reasons. I don't have a problem with it for now because it's members don't call the rest of Orthodoxy as "invalid" and "modernist" But my opinion on it is, if they want a separate Rite, it must be a Church of its own, similar to Eastern Catholic Churches having their own Liturgy. But then you'd get into that situation where in one city there would be two Churches. I understand why there is one bishop in one city/province, its for the unity of the people of that secular jurisdiction. And in the same breath, there should be one type of Liturgy celebrated on a given day for all people under the same bishop.

But my opinion on it is, if they want a separate Rite, it must be a Church of its own, similar to Eastern Catholic Churches having their own Liturgy. But then you'd get into that situation where in one city there would be two Churches. I understand why there is one bishop in one city/province, its for the unity of the people of that secular jurisdiction. And in the same breath, there should be one type of Liturgy celebrated on a given day for all people under the same bishop.

But my opinion on it is, if they want a separate Rite, it must be a Church of its own, similar to Eastern Catholic Churches having their own Liturgy. But then you'd get into that situation where in one city there would be two Churches. I understand why there is one bishop in one city/province, its for the unity of the people of that secular jurisdiction. And in the same breath, there should be one type of Liturgy celebrated on a given day for all people under the same bishop.

But my opinion on it is, if they want a separate Rite, it must be a Church of its own, similar to Eastern Catholic Churches having their own Liturgy. But then you'd get into that situation where in one city there would be two Churches. I understand why there is one bishop in one city/province, its for the unity of the people of that secular jurisdiction. And in the same breath, there should be one type of Liturgy celebrated on a given day for all people under the same bishop.

Roman Catolic influences are not welcomed.

Neither is "Romophobia"

When by "Romophobia" you mean "opposing alien to Orthodox Christianity distortions of ecclesiology that actually are kept in the Roman Church" it is perfectly OK. We have never had Trent or Vatican II and we do not need them.

But my opinion on it is, if they want a separate Rite, it must be a Church of its own, similar to Eastern Catholic Churches having their own Liturgy. But then you'd get into that situation where in one city there would be two Churches. I understand why there is one bishop in one city/province, its for the unity of the people of that secular jurisdiction. And in the same breath, there should be one type of Liturgy celebrated on a given day for all people under the same bishop.

Roman Catolic influences are not welcomed.

Neither is "Romophobia"

When by "Romophobia" you mean "opposing alien to Orthodox Christianity distortions of ecclesiology that actually are kept in the Roman Church" it is perfectly OK. We have never had Trent or Vatican II and we do not need them.

If you have specific issues in your mind, I cannot respond to them unless you share them. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't just make a blanket statement throwing out everything just because it comes from Rome. In whatever situation certainly there are some good ideas we can adopt, and there are things that we should never adopt. Unless you're thinking that everything in the Orthodox Church today is uniquely Orthodox handed down by Jesus to the Apostles. And by everything I don't mean just the faith.

Hmmm ... hopefully your plan isn't to be one of those Orthodox who constantly have their fingers in the Catholic "pie". I think we have enough of that already with podkarpatska and ialmisry.

Criticism helps you improve. Unless you think everything is oh-so-perfect over there.

I am shocked ... to learn that the Catholic Church, which I've been criticizing all these years, isn't perfect! (One of these days I'm going to watch a new movie.)

Well then why do you think I should stop saying what my beliefs are about the matter? As long as I am reactive rather than proactive (ie. starting conversations to say how problematic the Roman Catholic Church is today) then it is okay. If someone asks me a question, or there is a public forum like this and someone else asks the question, then I should have the right to respond. But I agree with you in that it would be wrong for me to be the one starting this conversation.

100 years ago my friend their were no debates about two men marrying. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt who are trying to do their best, harsh judgement won't help me on judgement day.

Yet homosexual behavior was accepted by society even in the First Millennium. The fact that it was mentioned so often in the Bible, both at the time of Moses and at the writings of St. Paul point to the fact that such activity exists in the time, and it is the problem. They can't address a problem that doesn't exist, so the fact that they are addressing it means it does exist.

And you're just looking at one problem. There are other problems back then. They don't have abortion the way we do it today, but at certain points in history infanticide was done liberally.

I was listening to this talk by Frederica Matthews-Greene on AFR where she pointed out that the sexual liberation started much, much earlier than we thought, even on movies. While today the glorification of sex is about "consenting unmarried adults", back in the 20s and 30s it was about secret affairs of married men, it was adultery. Yes, our problems today are different, but that doesn't mean they are worse. They have other problems in different magnitudes back then.

What societies accepted Homosexuality? I know the pagan greeks accepted pedastry but I am only aware of their being one homosexual pseudo marriage in antiquity and that was on of Nero's.

100 years ago my friend their were no debates about two men marrying. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt who are trying to do their best, harsh judgement won't help me on judgement day.

Yet homosexual behavior was accepted by society even in the First Millennium. The fact that it was mentioned so often in the Bible, both at the time of Moses and at the writings of St. Paul point to the fact that such activity exists in the time, and it is the problem. They can't address a problem that doesn't exist, so the fact that they are addressing it means it does exist.

And you're just looking at one problem. There are other problems back then. They don't have abortion the way we do it today, but at certain points in history infanticide was done liberally.

I was listening to this talk by Frederica Matthews-Greene on AFR where she pointed out that the sexual liberation started much, much earlier than we thought, even on movies. While today the glorification of sex is about "consenting unmarried adults", back in the 20s and 30s it was about secret affairs of married men, it was adultery. Yes, our problems today are different, but that doesn't mean they are worse. They have other problems in different magnitudes back then.

What societies accepted Homosexuality? I know the pagan greeks accepted pedastry but I am only aware of their being one homosexual pseudo marriage in antiquity and that was on of Nero's.

I said homosexuality, not homosexual marriage. I never said anything about marriage. Regardless, there were many other issues of the time as well that are not existent anymore today. At least in most developed nations.

Come on Catholics, you know Choy is right about the pre-Trent vaccum. Sure, you can find stuff, but that's not what's popular. I watch EWTN, I keep up with Catholicism, I've seen enough to know that everything post-Trent is emphasized (actually, the newer something is in Catholicism the more it is emphasized). For instance, the immaculate conception. Even if it was "always believed," or was merely revealed, the obsession with it in modern Catholicism is insane. One only need look as far as events like Pope Pius IX rededicating the church of St. James the Great to "Mary, Queen of the World" to realize this. It is very obvious, and I feel like the Catholics in this thread are deceiving themselves if they are arguing otherwise. Lourdes, Fatima, the immaculate heart. It is one thing to accept these things, but the absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church is undeniable.

Come on Catholics, you know Choy is right about the pre-Trent vaccum. Sure, you can find stuff, but that's not what's popular. I watch EWTN, I keep up with Catholicism, I've seen enough to know that everything post-Trent is emphasized (actually, the newer something is in Catholicism the more it is emphasized). For instance, the immaculate conception. Even if it was "always believed," or was merely revealed, the obsession with it in modern Catholicism is insane. One only need look as far as events like Pope Pius IX rededicating the church of St. James the Great to "Mary, Queen of the World" to realize this. It is very obvious, and I feel like the Catholics in this thread are deceiving themselves if they are arguing otherwise. Lourdes, Fatima, the immaculate heart. It is one thing to accept these things, but the absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church is undeniable.

I don't know anyone obsessed with these apparitions. In fact, most Catholics I know around my age think we should focus in the faith and not private revelations.

Come on Catholics, you know Choy is right about the pre-Trent vaccum. Sure, you can find stuff, but that's not what's popular. I watch EWTN, I keep up with Catholicism, I've seen enough to know that everything post-Trent is emphasized (actually, the newer something is in Catholicism the more it is emphasized). For instance, the immaculate conception. Even if it was "always believed," or was merely revealed, the obsession with it in modern Catholicism is insane. One only need look as far as events like Pope Pius IX rededicating the church of St. James the Great to "Mary, Queen of the World" to realize this. It is very obvious, and I feel like the Catholics in this thread are deceiving themselves if they are arguing otherwise. Lourdes, Fatima, the immaculate heart. It is one thing to accept these things, but the absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church is undeniable.

I don't know anyone obsessed with these apparitions. In fact, most Catholics I know around my age think we should focus in the faith and not private revelations.

There is a great obsession especially on Fatima, especially with the Traddie circles. You know, Pope John Paul II is a modernist heretic because he didn't really consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart, kind of obsession.

Come on Catholics, you know Choy is right about the pre-Trent vaccum. Sure, you can find stuff, but that's not what's popular. I watch EWTN, I keep up with Catholicism, I've seen enough to know that everything post-Trent is emphasized (actually, the newer something is in Catholicism the more it is emphasized). For instance, the immaculate conception. Even if it was "always believed," or was merely revealed, the obsession with it in modern Catholicism is insane. One only need look as far as events like Pope Pius IX rededicating the church of St. James the Great to "Mary, Queen of the World" to realize this. It is very obvious, and I feel like the Catholics in this thread are deceiving themselves if they are arguing otherwise. Lourdes, Fatima, the immaculate heart. It is one thing to accept these things, but the absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church is undeniable.

I don't know anyone obsessed with these apparitions. In fact, most Catholics I know around my age think we should focus in the faith and not private revelations.

Either a) you're a hermit with no connection with the rest of your ecclesial community b) Albaquerque is sealed off from the rest of the Vatican's ecclesial community c) we have a magic attraction to those in the Vatican's ecclesial community obsessed with these "apparitions" d) you're in denial e) you're trying to pull the wool over the sheep

Where did your supreme pontiff get that new holiday that he instituted for all your ecclesial community?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Come on Catholics, you know Choy is right about the pre-Trent vaccum. Sure, you can find stuff, but that's not what's popular. I watch EWTN, I keep up with Catholicism, I've seen enough to know that everything post-Trent is emphasized (actually, the newer something is in Catholicism the more it is emphasized). For instance, the immaculate conception. Even if it was "always believed," or was merely revealed, the obsession with it in modern Catholicism is insane. One only need look as far as events like Pope Pius IX rededicating the church of St. James the Great to "Mary, Queen of the World" to realize this. It is very obvious, and I feel like the Catholics in this thread are deceiving themselves if they are arguing otherwise. Lourdes, Fatima, the immaculate heart. It is one thing to accept these things, but the absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church is undeniable.

I don't know anyone obsessed with these apparitions. In fact, most Catholics I know around my age think we should focus in the faith and not private revelations.

Either a) you're a hermit with no connection with the rest of your ecclesial community b) Albaquerque is sealed off from the rest of the Vatican's ecclesial community c) we have a magic attraction to those in the Vatican's ecclesial community obsessed with these "apparitions" d) you're in denial e) you're trying to pull the wool over the sheep

Where did your supreme pontiff get that new holiday that he or instituted for all your ecclesial community?

Come on Catholics, you know Choy is right about the pre-Trent vaccum. Sure, you can find stuff, but that's not what's popular. I watch EWTN, I keep up with Catholicism, I've seen enough to know that everything post-Trent is emphasized (actually, the newer something is in Catholicism the more it is emphasized). For instance, the immaculate conception. Even if it was "always believed," or was merely revealed, the obsession with it in modern Catholicism is insane. One only need look as far as events like Pope Pius IX rededicating the church of St. James the Great to "Mary, Queen of the World" to realize this. It is very obvious, and I feel like the Catholics in this thread are deceiving themselves if they are arguing otherwise. Lourdes, Fatima, the immaculate heart. It is one thing to accept these things, but the absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church is undeniable.

I don't know anyone obsessed with these apparitions. In fact, most Catholics I know around my age think we should focus in the faith and not private revelations.

Either a) you're a hermit with no connection with the rest of your ecclesial community b) Albaquerque is sealed off from the rest of the Vatican's ecclesial community c) we have a magic attraction to those in the Vatican's ecclesial community obsessed with these "apparitions" d) you're in denial e) you're trying to pull the wool over the sheep

Where did your supreme pontiff get that new holiday that he or instituted for all your ecclesial community?

or D) You are full of it.

Quote

History of Apparitions at Hrushiv...1987: May9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 apparitions of Our Lady to Josyp Terelya, Holy Trinity Church, Hrishiv1987: April 26-August 15, Spectacular public apparitions of Our Lady continued. During the first three weeks tens of thousands of pilgrims reported seeing Our Lady and hearing her messages. Between 40-80,000 pilgrims attended daily. Children saw angels flying, KGB officials and non-believers underwent miraculous conversions, and on one day over 52,000 embroidered prayer towls were left by the pilgrims as tokens of love and reverence....

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Quite often when he quotes the Greek fathers the quoted texts are either interpolations or paraphrases. At least, that's the impression I got from reading his Contra Errores Graecorum.

I'd ask you to substantiate your claim, based on your "impression", but I'm (most unfortunately and ashamedly) so unfamiliar with St. Thomas' writings that it probably wouldn't mean much to me. Papist, on the other, seems to have more than just a passing familiarity with him and his writings, so I'm sure he'd be able to understand your references and citations.

Here's the work. The quotes of the Greek fathers come with talking balloons. Many quotes "cannot be found" are of Pseudo-Saint x or come from spurious works, such as St. Athanasius' elusive discourse on the Council of Nicaea, which I still haven't been able to find.

Come on Catholics, you know Choy is right about the pre-Trent vaccum. Sure, you can find stuff, but that's not what's popular. I watch EWTN, I keep up with Catholicism, I've seen enough to know that everything post-Trent is emphasized (actually, the newer something is in Catholicism the more it is emphasized). For instance, the immaculate conception. Even if it was "always believed," or was merely revealed, the obsession with it in modern Catholicism is insane. One only need look as far as events like Pope Pius IX rededicating the church of St. James the Great to "Mary, Queen of the World" to realize this. It is very obvious, and I feel like the Catholics in this thread are deceiving themselves if they are arguing otherwise. Lourdes, Fatima, the immaculate heart. It is one thing to accept these things, but the absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church is undeniable.

I don't know anyone obsessed with these apparitions. In fact, most Catholics I know around my age think we should focus in the faith and not private revelations.

Either a) you're a hermit with no connection with the rest of your ecclesial community b) Albaquerque is sealed off from the rest of the Vatican's ecclesial community c) we have a magic attraction to those in the Vatican's ecclesial community obsessed with these "apparitions" d) you're in denial e) you're trying to pull the wool over the sheep

Where did your supreme pontiff get that new holiday that he or instituted for all your ecclesial community?

or D) You are full of it.

Quote

History of Apparitions at Hrushiv...1987: May9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 apparitions of Our Lady to Josyp Terelya, Holy Trinity Church, Hrishiv1987: April 26-August 15, Spectacular public apparitions of Our Lady continued. During the first three weeks tens of thousands of pilgrims reported seeing Our Lady and hearing her messages. Between 40-80,000 pilgrims attended daily. Children saw angels flying, KGB officials and non-believers underwent miraculous conversions, and on one day over 52,000 embroidered prayer towls were left by the pilgrims as tokens of love and reverence....

Just about everything you do on this site makes you look ridiculous, especially denying the real experience of real Catholics. While acknowledge that those private revelations have a great influence on many Catholics (btw, I don't see anything wrong with them either), I stated that my experience of Catholics around my age is that don't spend a great deal of time, energy, or attention on such things. Most of the Catholics I know around my age never mention Lourdes, Fatima, etc., except on rare occasions. The reality is that we more concerned with the faith of the Church than we are with these private revelations.

Come on Catholics, you know Choy is right about the pre-Trent vaccum. Sure, you can find stuff, but that's not what's popular. I watch EWTN, I keep up with Catholicism, I've seen enough to know that everything post-Trent is emphasized (actually, the newer something is in Catholicism the more it is emphasized). For instance, the immaculate conception. Even if it was "always believed," or was merely revealed, the obsession with it in modern Catholicism is insane. One only need look as far as events like Pope Pius IX rededicating the church of St. James the Great to "Mary, Queen of the World" to realize this. It is very obvious, and I feel like the Catholics in this thread are deceiving themselves if they are arguing otherwise. Lourdes, Fatima, the immaculate heart. It is one thing to accept these things, but the absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church is undeniable.

I don't know anyone obsessed with these apparitions. In fact, most Catholics I know around my age think we should focus in the faith and not private revelations.

Well, I've known some Catholics who are "obessesed" with them, so I can confirm that such people do exist.

Come on Catholics, you know Choy is right about the pre-Trent vaccum. Sure, you can find stuff, but that's not what's popular. I watch EWTN, I keep up with Catholicism, I've seen enough to know that everything post-Trent is emphasized (actually, the newer something is in Catholicism the more it is emphasized). For instance, the immaculate conception. Even if it was "always believed," or was merely revealed, the obsession with it in modern Catholicism is insane. One only need look as far as events like Pope Pius IX rededicating the church of St. James the Great to "Mary, Queen of the World" to realize this. It is very obvious, and I feel like the Catholics in this thread are deceiving themselves if they are arguing otherwise. Lourdes, Fatima, the immaculate heart. It is one thing to accept these things, but the absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church is undeniable.

I don't know anyone obsessed with these apparitions. In fact, most Catholics I know around my age think we should focus in the faith and not private revelations.

Well, I've known some Catholics who are "obessesed" with them, so I can confirm that such people do exist.

I'm sure they do. But they don't really exist in the circle of people I know, and I think it's much rarer than Izzy suggests.

Quite often when he quotes the Greek fathers the quoted texts are either interpolations or paraphrases. At least, that's the impression I got from reading his Contra Errores Graecorum.

I'd ask you to substantiate your claim, based on your "impression", but I'm (most unfortunately and ashamedly) so unfamiliar with St. Thomas' writings that it probably wouldn't mean much to me. Papist, on the other, seems to have more than just a passing familiarity with him and his writings, so I'm sure he'd be able to understand your references and citations.

Here's the work. The quotes of the Greek fathers come with talking balloons. Many quotes "cannot be found" are of Pseudo-Saint x or come from spurious works, such as St. Athanasius' elusive discourse on the Council of Nicaea, which I still haven't been able to find.

Well....hmm....okay. I think I'll defer to Papist on this matter. I have neither the time, the brain power, or readily available eyesight left to read, compare/contrast, analyze the material in your link. Maybe, if and when I start suffering severely from insomnia, I'll try to tackle that . Maybe. But don't count on it.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian